(04-18-2013 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

UK might have a minuscule chance of leaving if the Big Ten got UNC and Duke.

But Tennessee will never in a million years leave the SEC. It just isn't happening and there are too many cultural ties.

(04-17-2013 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

You do realize, and this is in no way a slight, that Texas A&M is the only school to represent singularly their state in the SEC without being considered publicly to be the flagship school of it. Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana State are all the flagship schools of their states.

There is no question that Mike Slive would rather have his alma mater Virginia and Delany's alma mater North Carolina in the SEC than to have Virginia Tech and N.C. State. I think this is the main point Quo Vadis is trying to make. You are correct that having N.C. State and Virginia Tech would permit each SEC school to earn about 3.1 million more per each by having them. But he is correct in saying that a conference that essentially possesses the flagship school of every state it occupies would be suffering a type of downgrade by accepting N.C. State and Virginia Tech instead. Not a downgrade of revenue, but of stature and prestige.

Excellent post. It is clear that the SEC values flagships, as flagships are the dominant schools in a state, and this is a key reason it would be a step down to add VT or NC State. This would especially be true if the ACC was being dismembered and UNC and Virginia were joining the B1G at the same time we are adding NC State and VT. That would be a grievous situation.

That said, i do believe that adding Texas A/M was an exception to the rule that the SEC should add only flagships. But that's because Texas is such a large state and A/M is such a wealthy and well-regarded school, that A/M is essentially a flagship-level school. Would it have been even better to add Texas? Yes, but still, adding A/M was a big coup for the conference. The other equivalent would be adding UCLA, which IIRC technically is also not a flagship but is in such a large state that the state essentially has multiple flagships.

Neither VT or NC State come close to having those characteristics. The crown-jewels of those states are clearly Virginia and UNC, and if the SEC settles for less in two states in the South, then it is accepting second-fiddle status there.

One quibble: I'm not sure adding VT and NC State wouldn't hurt revenue as well. It would have to split the money 2 more ways, I'm not sure media companies would value them that highly. Put it this way: IMO, both VT and NC State are less valuable from a media point of view than the existing "average" SEC team, so I think that in addition to the loss of prestige, we'd suffer an incremental loss in per-school revenue too.

(04-18-2013 08:40 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  But that's all hypothetical. It's not going to be the SEC picking and choosing. If we get into NC and VA it will happen because

1) UNC and UVA decide to leave the ACC for the B1G

2) VT and NCSU pick up the phone and call Slive asking for a rescue.

That's the most realistic and probable scenario.

... and since that would mean the SEC was getting the leftovers after the B1G got the main courses in those states, why is it so hard for you to see that this scenario would represent a big blow to the SEC's standing and prestige?

Heck, even saying the SEC is not going to be the one "picking and choosing" drives that point home, as if VT (!?!?!) and NC State (!?!?) are actually better than the SEC? Good Lord.

The SEC must do everything it can to try and prevent UNC and Virginia from joining any conference but the SEC, especially the B1G. If the B1G can grab flagships in the Old South, that is a huge crack in the SEC's armor.

(04-18-2013 09:23 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

UK might have a minuscule chance of leaving if the Big Ten got UNC and Duke.

But Tennessee will never in a million years leave the SEC. It just isn't happening and there are too many cultural ties.

As someone who grew up about 10 miles from the Maryland campus, trust me, there were very deep and enduring ties between Maryland and the ACC as well. And yet the B1G was able to throw enough money at them to overcome those ties.

History shows that there are very few intangible/cultural ties that can't be overcome with enough money...

I think its more likely the sec would jump to 18 with 4 from uva, va tech, unc, duke and nc state than it is they just get 2 from that pool.

You just don't get it.

Football drives the bus.

Neither UNC or UVA are football schools. Nobody in either state cares about them during football season or in UVAs case during any season but baseball and lacrosse.

You think the people of VA would rather watch UVA vs Minnesota instead of VT vs Tennessee? UVA vs Purdue instead of VT vs Georgia?

The same is true for NC state.

The SEC schedule will make them THE teams to watch in both states. That means the SEC gets those 2 large markets for itself and that's what matters at the end of the day.

(04-18-2013 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

You do realize, and this is in no way a slight, that Texas A&M is the only school to represent singularly their state in the SEC without being considered publicly to be the flagship school of it. Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana State are all the flagship schools of their states.

There is no question that Mike Slive would rather have his alma mater Virginia and Delany's alma mater North Carolina in the SEC than to have Virginia Tech and N.C. State. I think this is the main point Quo Vadis is trying to make. You are correct that having N.C. State and Virginia Tech would permit each SEC school to earn about 3.1 million more per each by having them. But he is correct in saying that a conference that essentially possesses the flagship school of every state it occupies would be suffering a type of downgrade by accepting N.C. State and Virginia Tech instead. Not a downgrade of revenue, but of stature and prestige.

Excellent post. It is clear that the SEC values flagships, as flagships are the dominant schools in a state, and this is a key reason it would be a step down to add VT or NC State. This would especially be true if the ACC was being dismembered and UNC and Virginia were joining the B1G at the same time we are adding NC State and VT. That would be a grievous situation.

That said, i do believe that adding Texas A/M was an exception to the rule that the SEC should add only flagships. But that's because Texas is such a large state and A/M is such a wealthy and well-regarded school, that A/M is essentially a flagship-level school. Would it have been even better to add Texas? Yes, but still, adding A/M was a big coup for the conference. The other equivalent would be adding UCLA, which IIRC technically is also not a flagship but is in such a large state that the state essentially has multiple flagships.

Neither VT or NC State come close to having those characteristics. The crown-jewels of those states are clearly Virginia and UNC, and if the SEC settles for less in two states in the South, then it is accepting second-fiddle status there.

One quibble: I'm not sure adding VT and NC State wouldn't hurt revenue as well. It would have to split the money 2 more ways, I'm not sure media companies would value them that highly. Put it this way: IMO, both VT and NC State are less valuable from a media point of view than the existing "average" SEC team, so I think that in addition to the loss of prestige, we'd suffer an incremental loss in per-school revenue too.

The conference crunched the numbers on that and Virginia Tech actually delivers slightly more of Virginia because of where it is located than does Virginia. But, in the case of N.C. State there are questions as to whether they can deliver the state by themselves. There is no question that U.N.C. delivers the whole state.

You have to ask yourself: why is this guy so adamant that the SEC not pursue easy and obvious inroads to the last 2 markets it has long since set its desire for? That instead, the SEC should just cede control of VA and NC to the B1G with no fight and no attempt to gain any market share in an 18 million person area?

Could it be that he doesn't like the idea of the B1G going head to head with the SEC for control of those 2 states?

(04-18-2013 10:22 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You just don't get it.

Football drives the bus.

Neither UNC or UVA are football schools. Nobody in either state cares about them during football season or in UVAs case during any season but baseball and lacrosse.

You think the people of VA would rather watch UVA vs Minnesota instead of VT vs Tennessee? UVA vs Purdue instead of VT vs Georgia?

The same is true for NC state.

The SEC schedule will make them THE teams to watch in both states. That means the SEC gets those 2 large markets for itself and that's what matters at the end of the day.

Football does not drive the Conference Network Bus. There is much more quality programming in College Basketball. Guess who wins that one hands down?

Who are those 18 million people going to watch?

Their teams playing northern and Midwestern teams, or their teams playing southern teams?

I say let's find out.

(04-18-2013 11:52 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to ask yourself: why is this guy so adamant that the SEC not pursue easy and obvious inroads to the last 2 markets it has long since set its desire for? That instead, the SEC should just cede control of VA and NC to the B1G with no fight and no attempt to gain any market share in an 18 million person area?

Could it be that he doesn't like the idea of the B1G going head to head with the SEC for control of those 2 states?

I don't think North Carolina and Virginia are going to be in play for anyone 10th. I'm not so sure that we are going to need them to gain access to that market. ESPN will be the key. I'll know more later, but the network deal may be the foundation for shared markets between the ACC and SEC.

I don't think they are going anywhere either.

My point though is that if they were to go to the B1G as some expect, the SEC can and will use that as an opportunity to get into the NC and VA markets and the SEC brand and schedule power would make those 2 very profitable additions even if they aren't UNC and UVA.

(04-18-2013 12:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I don't think they are going anywhere either.

My point though is that if they were to go to the B1G as some expect, the SEC can and will use that as an opportunity to get into the NC and VA markets and the SEC brand and schedule power would make those 2 very profitable additions even if they aren't UNC and UVA.

I agree with you that we would go for the markets. Heck we would do that just to buffer the Big 10's encroachment. We might even look at Pitt and Syracuse if they made a move like that. I don't think anyone wants to jump to 20 yet. But what the SEC will do is counter the Big 10's moves in order to maintain a balance of market values versus what they seek to gain. Slive will not let a revenue gap grow between the two.

(04-18-2013 09:23 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

UK might have a minuscule chance of leaving if the Big Ten got UNC and Duke.

But Tennessee will never in a million years leave the SEC. It just isn't happening and there are too many cultural ties.

I am a Kentucky fan living in Nashville who grew up in a different part of Tennessee, so I have may have a bit of a local perspective on all three going to the BIG:

UK - Only Tennessee sees UK as an all around rival. We have Florida for BBall, but that is about it. First, UK does not have the academics for a BIG fit, but 20 years down the road if Kentucky became a top 80 school, they would absolutely consider it, especially if UVA and UNC were also on board.

UT - Maybe if the Atlantic Ocean swallowed every state south of Tennessee and they had nowhere to go. Even then, it would be a hard sell.

Vanderbilt - Maybe if the SEC got desperate and expanded west (not including UTexas). They would actually love to add FSU, Miami, Ga. Tech, and/or Clemson because they are good academic schools. However, if Duke were joined to the BIG along with UVA, it would be hard for them to turn down a partnership with Northwestern and Duke, whom they consider to be their closest peer institutions. If the BIG added Syracuse along with Duke, they should go. New York has the second largest portion of the student body at Vandy outside of the state of Tennessee. Vandy is like Duke in that their student recruiting happens more in the northeast than southeast. Nashville has become a very flexible city in terms of culture. I was downtown a while back, and both the Country Music Hall of Fame and the Symphony Hall (next door) held white tent events, and you wouldn't be able to tell one crowd from the other if you switched the tents. Nashville can go BIG or SEC in terms of culture, similar to the Research Triangle.

(04-18-2013 12:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  My point though is that if they were to go to the B1G as some expect, the SEC can and will use that as an opportunity to get into the NC and VA markets and the SEC brand and schedule power would make those 2 very profitable additions even if they aren't UNC and UVA.

Believe it or not, you and I do not disagree about this. Should the B1G win the battle for UVA and UNC, then if the choice is between the B1G being in those two southern states and the SEC not being in those southern states, and the SEC adding NC State and VT as consolation prizes, then i agree the SEC should add them as consolation prizes. Because a consolation prize is better than nothing.

My point, however, is that they WOULD be consolation prizes, and for a conference like the SEC that fancies itself the king of the college sporting hill, having to accept consolation prizes after having lost out the main prizes (UNC and UVA) to the B1G in a part of the country that should be SEC home turf, well, that would indeed constitute a major blow to SEC status and prestige, and would indicate that the B1G, not the SEC, is the true king of the hill.

(04-18-2013 09:23 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

UK might have a minuscule chance of leaving if the Big Ten got UNC and Duke.

But Tennessee will never in a million years leave the SEC. It just isn't happening and there are too many cultural ties.

Tennessee will never join the B1G. Nobody here in Vol country wants anything to do with the B1G. It's SEC all the way. It's been that way for about 80 years now, and nobody wants that to change...

Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know anything about Tennessee or the SEC...

(04-18-2013 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 12:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  My point though is that if they were to go to the B1G as some expect, the SEC can and will use that as an opportunity to get into the NC and VA markets and the SEC brand and schedule power would make those 2 very profitable additions even if they aren't UNC and UVA.

Believe it or not, you and I do not disagree about this. Should the B1G win the battle for UVA and UNC, then if the choice is between the B1G being in those two southern states and the SEC not being in those southern states, and the SEC adding NC State and VT as consolation prizes, then i agree the SEC should add them as consolation prizes. Because a consolation prize is better than nothing.

My point, however, is that they WOULD be consolation prizes, and for a conference like the SEC that fancies itself the king of the college sporting hill, having to accept consolation prizes after having lost out the main prizes (UNC and UVA) to the B1G in a part of the country that should be SEC home turf, well, that would indeed constitute a major blow to SEC status and prestige, and would indicate that the B1G, not the SEC, is the true king of the hill.

As has been stated before, both the BIG and SEC are at an impasse with UVA and UNC because both states want a soft landing spot for VT and NCST. The SEC does not want to appear as taking the leftovers, and the BIG cannot swallow adding the state schools. The SEC is in the best position to get UVA and UNC because they could conceivably add the state schools and not be harmed academically. Is it worth it? Would there be a big change of heart and the states of FL, GA, and SC saw the benefit in letting their state schools in to totally lock up the South? A fan/alumni's heart says "yes", an executive's head says "no".

(04-18-2013 10:22 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You just don't get it.

Football drives the bus.

Neither UNC or UVA are football schools.

Well, UNC has an overall 64-32 record vs NC State in football, for what that's worth. Anyway, even accepting your claim that "football drives the bus", fact is none of these four schools are historical football powers and only VT is a recent football power, but that may last only as long as Frank Beamer, who built the program from nothing, is the coach. There is no reason to think that UVA and UNC would not benefit the same from football by playing SEC competition as would NC State and VT.

But even more importantly, from an expansion POV, in the SEC football obviously does not drive any buses, otherwise why did it add two middling football schools in Missouri and Texas A/M? The SEC has football prestige up the wazoo, thus giving it the freedom to use expansion to shore up its relative weakness in basketball - which UNC would do in spades.

(04-18-2013 01:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:23 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

UK might have a minuscule chance of leaving if the Big Ten got UNC and Duke.

But Tennessee will never in a million years leave the SEC. It just isn't happening and there are too many cultural ties.

Tennessee will never join the B1G. Nobody here in Vol country wants anything to do with the B1G. It's SEC all the way. It's been that way for about 80 years now, and nobody wants that to change...

Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know anything about Tennessee or the SEC...

Bit, i understand that the culture of Tennessee is purely old-south and SEC. But, I never thought I'd see the twin towers or the berlin wall fall down, and yet both did. Point is, stranger things have happened, and Tennessee has never been in the position of being offered say $20 million more per year by the B1G. If they are, they may take the money.

Probably not, but .... money drives the bus at universities these days.

(04-18-2013 01:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 10:22 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You just don't get it.

Football drives the bus.

Neither UNC or UVA are football schools.

Well, UNC has an overall 64-32 record vs NC State in football, for what that's worth. Anyway, even accepting your claim that "football drives the bus", fact is none of these four schools are historical football powers and only VT is a recent football power, but that may last only as long as Frank Beamer, who built the program from nothing, is the coach. There is no reason to think that UVA and UNC would not benefit the same from football by playing SEC competition as would NC State and VT.

But even more importantly, from an expansion POV, in the SEC football obviously does not drive any buses, otherwise why did it add two middling football schools in Missouri and Texas A/M? The SEC has football prestige up the wazoo, thus giving it the freedom to use expansion to shore up its relative weakness in basketball - which UNC would do in spades.

I think you would see a similar effect in NC and VA that we saw out of TAMU last year in terms of recruiting interest. They are killing it this year with their in state talent. Mizzou has not seen a meteoric rise because they do not have the fertile recruiting ground, but NC and VA have great talent. All of those top kids are going to current SEC schools, Florida State, or Ohio State. If they had the option to stay home and still play in the SEC, I believe you would see vast improvement in both programs very quickly. Both are very strong academically, too, which can be used to your advantage in recruiting. I live in Nashville, so I hear the spill every other week from James Franklin, and it works for a lot of high quality, talented guys.

If UVA or UNC were to come to the SEC, they should lock it up and throw away the key unless/until Texas or Oklahoma come calling. A southern man can dream, right?